Mr N Richmond\
3 Sherwood Copse\
Tideswell\
Derbyshire\
SK17 8JJ\
30th January 2015

Peak District National Park Authority,\
Planning Services,\
Aldern House,\
Bakewell.\
Derbyshire

Dear Sirs

Objection to:

NP/DDD/0115/0004 and NP/DDD/0115/0005

I write to object to the above mentioned planning applications submitted under the guise of a Section 73 application relating to Condition 2 & 23 of Planning permission NP/DDD/0212/0153.

Condition 2 of condition Planning permission NP/DDD/0212/0153 states:-

“The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the amended plan no's 653/008 Rev B, 003 Rev D, 011 & 012, subject to the following conditions or modifications:”

And 23 of Planning permission NP/DDD/0212/0153 states:-

“The rooflights shall be fitted flush with the roofslope.”

As you will be aware, planning permission was granted for the change of use of the Former United Reform Church to accommodate two 3 bedroom properties, a matter which was discussed at length, and accepted by members only on the understanding that a significant number of conditions were attached to the planning permission. These included planning condition 17 which states “The four rooflights serving the first floor Ensuites and Dressing Room shall be omitted”. (Surely a strong clue that further roof lights would not be acceptable). (Also bear in mind that the roof lights proposed at this time were proposed to be much smaller).

Rather than relating purely to the terms of the original condition, one of the above mentioned submitted applications has included an amended plan which shows the provision of a fourth bedroom and additional roof lights. It is my strong contention that this intensification of the site and the addition of further roof lights is not a matter that can procedurally be dealt with through a Section 73 application to vary condition 23. Increasing the intensification of the site goes to the heart of the planning permission and cannot be dealt with by this means. At no point to date has an assessment been made on the impact of a 4 bedroomed property, and under a Section 73 application consideration relating to condition 2 and 23 should be limited to the terms of these conditions alone.

If this has been an oversight on the Authority’s part, I would expect this application to become invalid, and for the applicant to submit a fresh application and pay the correct fee. You should be aware the Authority is leaving itself open to a claim for maladministration. This is not the first time I have pointed this out to yourselves.

Members granted planning permission following the imposition of a planning condition relating to the deletion of a number of the rooflights, however, the applicant has shown complete disregard to the decision of members and has ploughed on regardless installing rooflights larger than those permitted not flush to the roof profile (causing further visual harm) and now seeks to further install additional rooflights, contrary to the previous recommendation of officers, and the decision of Authority members.

One of the matters which was discussed at length by Members when the original application was considered, was the number and location of the roof light windows to ensure that the overall appearance of the conservation area and historic building were retained, and as far as possible and that the amenity of residents was protected. The original officers report of 9th August 2013 noted the importance of the imposing Church roof to the Conservation Area, and also noted that the biggest external change to the building was the proposal to add roof lights. The recommendation to approve the change of use was only given with the deletion of four of the proposed roof lights. This was an officer recommendation based upon planning policy, and was endorsed by Authority members at committee. At that time, the total number of roof lights was one such issue, but at that time they were also being considered as much smaller than the unauthorised roof lights which have been installed on the eastern elevation of the church and now proposed on the western elevation. Thus, the impact of these applications is even greater (especially considering the installed and proposed roof lights protrude above the natural roof profile, exacerbating the negative visual effect, and the negative effect upon the Conservation Area, and the effect upon neighbour amenity.

The Sunday School development (Part of the original suite of change of use applications on the site, but a much less prominent building or visible building) has had roof lights installed, but these are smaller discreet and flush to the existing profile. Surely common standards should be applied within the same Conservation Area/National Park, where planning policy is the same? Why Should the URC Church Building somehow be exempt from the controls that made the change of use acceptable in the first place? What change in planning policy/material consideration has come about such that the size/number/ flushness of the rooflights is no longer an issue?

On the matter of the oversized and currently unauthorised roof lights recently installed on the Eastern elevation of the application building, I was told by your enforcement team that “these have been assessed by two planning officers and it has been decided that an amendment can be made to the current Section 73 application to incorporate the changes to the rooflights. I have therefore closed the enquiry.” Can you inform me what assessment has been made of the oversized rooflights? Was this the subject of any report? Have any investigation been made into whether the increase in size leads to the possibility of my property being overlooked? (I asked this question at the beginning of December but have not received a response to these specific questions). I am perplexed how you believe that this development which has already taken place without planning permission can be dealt with or incorporated into a Section 73 application. My understanding is Section 73A is the appropriate section for any retrospective application to fall under. Again, if this is this an oversight or a miscommunication, I trust the Authority and the applicant will take the procedurally correct route. If you disagree with my observations on that point, please inform me in writing why you take a contrary view. I also note that the application has not been advertised as being in any way retrospective.

Should you consider that this current Section 73 application can proceed, I would like to make the following observations and objections:- Firstly, the currently unauthorised rooflights (installed at a lower position and larger than on the approved plan) upon the Eastern elevation have increased the prospect of my property being overlooked, and had a detrimental effect upon neighbour amenity. This is unacceptable, and the developer should be forced to rectify this matter. They have a detrimental effect upon the Conservation Area being large and visually intrusive, especially given they have not been installed flush with the roof profile as required by the original planning permission. I wish to object to any additional rooflights as this will further have a detrimental impact to the overall appearance of the conservation area and would result in loss of privacy and overlooking to neighbouring properties.

Over the past twelve months there has been an incremental creeping of development on site resulting in a development materially different from that originally considered and permitted by members. My impression is that each NMA application or S73 application is being considered ‘in a vaccuum’ without any real regard to the cumulative impacts created. The development on site has a far greater detrimental impact on residents and the conservation than members permitted, primarily due to the amendments allowed under delegated powers. Whilst not the subject of this application, how long before the applicant submits another discrete application for a further roof lights to facilitate an additional bedroom in the southern residential unit in the area marked ‘void not surveyed’. Obviously the applicants prerogative, but watch this space eh ?...Where will the bats go?

With regards to the proposal to include an additional bedroom, the proposal does not comply with your council’s development plan policies in that the parking spaces provided for the site would be contrary to the number required for the proposed size of development. As you will appreciate this is a rural location with narrow lanes and limited parking. The existing highway is heavily parked and further intensification in the use of the site without the required number of parking spaces in accordance with your policies will result in a detrimental impact on existing residential properties and result in a highway safety impact, however, to add additional spaces within the site would be outside the scope of this type of application, and would lead to an overdeveloped development within the Conservation Area.

With regard to the proposal to add a further bedroom in the uppermost part of the roof space, how can this be accommodated without loosing the ability for the provision for ecological enhancement (namely bat encouragement through conditions 15,16 and 31 ) It seems entirely at odds with these conditions, or is this simply another change PDNPA is prepared to accept because it suits the developers profit maximisation and represents the path of least resistance for all concerned? Finally, I must express my dismay at the number of prior commencement planning conditions and other planning that have not complied with in connection with this development. I find it quite saddening that I have seen nothing to dispel the myth that developers can get their permission then do what they like.

In summary, there are clear issues that PDNPA should be addressing potentially in an enforcement capacity to protect the amenity of surrounding neighbours and to avoid the potential ombudsman complaints.

Thank you for your time in considering the contents of this letter and its objections.

Yours sincerely

Mr N. Richmond

BA(Hons), MA, MRTPI